
Try turning off the dithering
Hand-vectored?
GMOS does wonderful vector-style animations
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:44,
archived)
Hand-vectored?
GMOS does wonderful vector-style animations

I tried using my little trick but it made it disgustingly bad looking.
Sorry about the size I've changed it to the un-dithered version thanks for the tip :)
EDIT: Seems to have turned it into a disco crash test even better :D
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:46,
archived)
Sorry about the size I've changed it to the un-dithered version thanks for the tip :)
EDIT: Seems to have turned it into a disco crash test even better :D

I think you've just 'discovered' some of the options in the 'convert bitmap' menu, that's all.
Just so we're clear, I don't give a rat's ass how you made it, but I think it's pretty fucking weak to lie about it.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:54,
archived)
Just so we're clear, I don't give a rat's ass how you made it, but I think it's pretty fucking weak to lie about it.

done by hand would hardly be likely to have the colours jumping as they do.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:57,
archived)

edit: oh, I see - well whatever it is called, I'm not interested - it's wonderful.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:47,
archived)

I'm pretty sure there were some arguments about what exactly vectoring was a while back
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:50,
archived)


Particularly given that everything posted on b3ta ends up being rasterised anyway, regardless of how it's originally made.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:56,
archived)

i'm going to look at b3ta through a cathode ray oscilloscope from now on
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:04,
archived)

who sketch the output really quickly on to paper and display the screen to you via the medium of flickbooks.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:05,
archived)

if i was modifying orphans, it would be with massive spoilers and 20in rims.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:07,
archived)

why on earth does art have to be hard to do? I really don't get that.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:57,
archived)

and add NOT! after sarcastic statements.
edit: NOOOTTTTT!
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:02,
archived)
edit: NOOOTTTTT!

NOOOOTTTT!!
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:04,
archived)


i chose my words poorly.
i think vectors and rotoscoping, when done properly, look amazing. i just presumed that similar techniques applied to both.
am i off the hook?
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:54,
archived)
i think vectors and rotoscoping, when done properly, look amazing. i just presumed that similar techniques applied to both.
am i off the hook?

anything posted on here cannot be a vector, since it's been rasterized into jpeg/png/gif. The true vector remains in whatever-the-hell format it was created in
Or some such
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:54,
archived)
Or some such

being called a reference is undoubtedly in reference to the 'method' that was used to create the work.
Although, people could post links to a swf if they so chose to keep it vectory.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:00,
archived)
Although, people could post links to a swf if they so chose to keep it vectory.

But to satisfy those who try to claim that if something was done in paint, say, but it looks very "vectorish" it is a vector, then I say, yes. Why not. Let it be a vector if it looks as such
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:08,
archived)

I didn't know it had a technical name, thats pretty much what I always do.
( ,
Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:50,
archived)